Search

This article documents the methodological thinking that underpined a sociological study of Teach for Bangladesh ( TFB ), a globally mobile yet locally embedded education policy situated in a developing world context. In order to reassess education policy vis-à-vis spatialities–power, relationships–resources, culture– change and imaginations–flows of globalization, this methodological thinking has to be both flexible and innovative. Analysis (topological) has demanded a combination of global ethnography and network ethnography, the former allowing global forces to be understood as spatially and culturally imbricated within intersecting policy worlds ([g]local cases), and the latter mapping and analysing spaces (networks and relations) and places (cultural negotiations) that characterize power within such imbrications. Data were collected both online and on site, resulting in both empirical advantages and practical challenges. As a sociological attempt to study policy mobilities in education in a Southeast Asian context, this study offers an innovative methodology and a befitting set of analytical vocabulary.

© 2017, The Australian Association for Research in Education, Inc. This paper explores teachers’ and school leaders’ perceptions of commercialisation in Australian public schools, reporting on findings from an open-ended survey question from an exploratory study that sought to investigate teacher and school leader perceptions and experiences of commercialisation. Commercialisation, for the purposes of this paper, is understood as the creation, marketing and sale of education goods and services to schools by for-profit providers and often includes (but is not limited to) the provision of curriculum content, assessment services, data infrastructures, digital learning, remedial instruction, professional development and school administration support. Our account highlights that commercialisation is prevalent in the day-to-day practice of Australian public schools. The perceptions of teachers and leaders suggest that commercialisation is complex, with both affordances and challenges. Respondents acknowledged that aspects of commercialisation are necessary for successfully running schools and classrooms in the 21st century, but also noted that there is a fine line beyond which these seemingly innocuous services become perilous. Concerns focused on how particular services are leading to the deprofessionalisation of teachers as they have less autonomy over what to teach and how to teach it. Moreover, teachers and school leaders reported being perturbed by the idea that commercial providers and services might work to replace teachers in the future. Drawing on these data we argue that growing commercialisation in Australian public schools clearly requires an ethical debate that schools, education professionals, policy makers and interested publics are yet to have.

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This paper examines the impact of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in two national policy contexts: Canada and Australia. Drawing on theories of globalisation and affect, the paper explores ‘catalyst data’ and its effects in these contexts to show how affective responses to mediations of PISA performance have become important levers for policy change. Two empirical cases of the role of data in the globalisation of schooling are discussed. The first case examines responses in Canada to the PISA 2012 results, which generated senses of anxiety among parents that coalesced into a view that Albertan schools faced a mathematics crisis. The second case interrogates how, since PISA 2009, a narrative about the declining quality of Australian schooling has become dominant in political discourse and in media representations. The paper compares and contrasts the affective effects of data across both contexts.

Across Australia NAPLAN data is being used in a range of ways to serve multiple purposes. The validity of this practice is critically examined in this chapter by drawing on the largest collection and analysis of empirical data on multiple facets of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education in state schools to date. Validity, in this context, is very much concerned with the accuracy with which NAPLAN tests assess the skills or attributes of literacy and numeracy and the decisions that are made based on those test scores. At a time of increasing student diversity and increasing accountability, it is important to explain how by holding teachers to account through the reuse of assessment data for ‘second-order purposes,’ unintended damaging consequences are occurring particularly in terms of equity. This argument will build on an analysis of the quality of pedagogical decisions taken in the schools of this study to illustrate how such decisions constitute a threat to validity.

In 2004, the Queensland State Government rolled out the Embedding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Perspectives in Schooling (EATSIPS) program. The policy was relaunched in 2009. This initiative aimed to improve Indigenous student learning outcomes, improve relationships between schools and Indigenous communities, and to develop a deeper understanding and respect for traditional and contemporary Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures amongst all students (EATSIPS 2011: 13). We are interested in the social justice possibilities of EATSIPS and its potential contribution to Reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia. We are also interested in whether schooling practices informed by EAT-SIPS could reflect decolonising opportunities. This point is illustrated by the fact that, from 2009, it was mandatory for all state-school teachers to undergo professional development in EATSIPS, and all state schools underwent an EATSIPS audit of their policy, curriculum and pedagogical practices...

Despite the rhetoric of schools serving the needs of specific communities, it is evident that the work of teachers and principals is shaped by government imperatives to demonstrate success according to a set of standard ‘benchmarks’. In this chapter, we draw from our current study of new forms of educational leadership emerging in South Australian public primary schools to explore the ways in which test-based accountability requirements are being mediated by principals in schools that serve high poverty communities. Taking an institutional ethnography approach we focus on the everyday work of a principal and a literacy leader in one suburban primary school to show the complexity of the impact of national testing on practices of literacy leadership. We elaborate on the inescapable textual framings and tasks faced by the principal and literacy leader, and those that they create and modify – such as a common literacy agreement and ‘literacy chats’ between a literacy leader and classroom teacher – in order to ‘hold on to ethics’. We argue that while leaders’ and teachers’ everyday work is regulated by ‘ruling relations’ (Smith, 1999), it is also organic and responsive to the local context. We conclude with a reflection on the important situated work that school leaders do in mediating trans-local policies that might otherwise close down possibilities for engaging ethically with students and their learning in a particular school.

Since 2008, Australian schoolchildren in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 have sat a series of tests each May designed to assess their attainment of basic skills in literacy and numeracy. These tests are known as the National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN). In 2010, individual school NAPLAN data were first published on the MySchool website which enables comparisons to be made between individual schools and statistically like schools across Australia. NAPLAN represents the increased centrality of the federal government in education, particularly in regards to education policy. One effect of this has been a recast emphasis of education as an economic, rather than democratic, good. As Reid (2009) suggests, this recasting of education within national productivity agendas mobilises commonsense discourses of accountability and transparency. These are common articles of faith for many involved in education administration and bureaucracy; more and better data, and holding people to account for that data, must improve education...

Introduction This book examines a pressing educational issue: the global phenomenon of national testing in schooling and its vernacular development in Australia. The Australian National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), introduced in 2008, involves annual census testing of students in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 in nearly all Australian schools. In a variety of ways, NAPLAN affects the lives of Australia’s 3.5 million school students and their families, as well as more than 350,000 school staff and many other stakeholders in education. This book is organised in relation to a simple question: What are the effects of national testing for systems, schools and individuals? Of course, this simple question requires complex answers. The chapters in this edited collection consider issues relating to national testing policy, the construction of the test, usages of the testing data and various effects of testing in systems, schools and classrooms. Each chapter examines an aspect of national testing in Australia using evidence drawn from research. The final chapter by the editors of this collection provides a broader reflection on this phenomenon and situates developments in testing globally...

To this point, the collection has provided research-based, empirical accounts of the various and multiple effects of the National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) in Australian schooling as a specific example of the global phenomenon of national testing. In this chapter, we want to develop a more theoretical analysis of national testing systems, globalising education policy and the promise of national testing as adaptive, online tests. These future moves claim to provide faster feedback and more useful diagnostic help for teachers. There is a utopian testing dream that one day adaptive, online tests will be responsive in real time providing an integrated personalised testing, pedagogy and intervention for each student. The moves towards these next generation assessments are well advanced, including the work of Pearson’s NextGen Learning and Assessment research group, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) move into assessing affective skills and the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority’s (ACARA) decision to phase in NAPLAN as an online, adaptive test from 2017...

© 2016, Copyright © The College of Education and Human Ecology, The Ohio State University. Current debates about test-based accountability policies revolve around questions of how to ensure that all students have access to high-quality schools and teachers. Whether and how one can meet this goal depend, in part, on the nature of the arguments that policy proponents and opponents mobilize in these debates. This article examines these arguments, focusing specifically on how policymakers and educators justify and critique prominent test-based accountability policies, the OECD's PISA, and enhanced teacher evaluation. Drawing on pragmatic sociology and our research on these policies, we show how policy proponents mobilize industrial, market, and civic arguments to define both quality and equity as the efficient production of standardized test scores. In contrast, educators more often employ civic and domestic arguments that expand the definition of educational quality, but do not engage issues of educational equity. We explore how educators can mobilize arguments and the news media to expand the definition of educational quality and equity to enrich both our vision of education and our debates about it.

This paper conceptualises think tanks and edu-businesses in relation to education policy work in the Australian polity. It situates the enhanced influence of both in relation to the restructured state, which has lost some key capacities in relation to the generation of research and ideas for policy. This restructuring has been strongly influenced by the techniques of new public management, the auditing of education through national and international testing and new forms of network governance, which have opened up spaces for the increased influence of think tanks and edu-businesses across the policy cycle in education. We see here the workings of a ‘polycentric state’. The paper also considers changing concepts of ‘evidence’, ‘expertise’ and ‘influence’ in respect of the involvement of think tanks and edu-businesses in circulating policy ideas and affecting policy development in Australian education. This introduction to this special issue of The Australian Educational Researcher serves as a provocation to further research on this new policy scenario.

This paper explores the policy of single-sex classes that is currently being adopted in some schools as a strategy for addressing boys' educational and social needs. It draws on research in one Australian government, coeducational primary school to examine teachers' and students' experiences of this strategy. Interviews with the principal, male and female teachers responsible for teaching the single-sex classes and the students involved in these classes are used to illustrate the impact and effect of the strategy on pedagogical practices in this particular school. The data are used to raise critical questions about the impact and effects of teachers' pedagogical practices in light of the current literature and research about single-sex classes. In this case study, it was found that teachers had a tendency to modify their pedagogical practices and the curriculum to suit stereotypical constructions about boys' and girls' supposed oppositional orientations to learning. It is concluded that teacher knowledges and assumptions about gender play an important role in the execution of their pedagogies in the single-sex classroom.

Frequent calls for more male teachers are being made in English‐speaking countries. Many of these calls are based upon the fact that the teaching profession has become (even more) ‘feminized’ and the presumption that this has had negative effects for the education of boys. The employment of more male teachers is sometimes suggested as a way to re‐masculinize schools so they become more ‘boy‐friendly’ and thus contribute to improving boys' school performance. The focus of this paper is on an Australian education policy document in the state of Queensland that is concerned with the attraction, recruitment and retention of male teachers in the government education system. It considers the failure of this document, as with many of the calls for more male teachers, to take into account complex matters of gender raised by feminism and the sociology of masculinities. The paper then critiques the primary argument given for the need for more male teachers: that is, that male teachers provide boys with much needed role models.

This paper explores the effects of specific teacher threshold knowledges about boys and gender on the implementation of a so-called 'boy friendly' curriculum at one junior secondary high school in Australia. Through semi-structured interviews with selected staff at the school, it examines the normalizing assumptions and 'truth claims' about boys, as gendered subjects, which drive the pedagogical impetus for such a curriculum initiative. This research raises crucial questions about the need for the formulation of both school and governmental policy grounded in sound research-based knowledge about the social construction of gender and its impact on the lives of both boys and girls and their experiences of schooling. This is crucial, we argue, in light of the recent parliamentary report on boys' education in Australia which rejects gender theorizing and given the failure of key staff in the research school to interrogate the binary ways in which masculinity and femininity are socially constructed and institutionalized in schools through a particular 'gender regime'. While some good things are happening in the research school, the failure to acknowledge the social construction of gender means that ultimately the school's programs cannot be successful.